Letters - 13 July 2018
From Alzheimer's to planning for humanity
Imprisoned not destroyed
My husband died of Parkinson’s disease at the age of fifty-five. He also had mild Alzheimer’s. While this combination is common in the old, it is unusual in the middle-aged.
In his last two years of life, he was bedridden and unable to move. For most of that time, he could do no more that raise his eyebrows – an action he used for ‘Yes’, leading to my having to rephrase questions when he made no response at all, so that I knew the difference between ‘No’ and ‘You’ve asked the wrong question’.
He was able to stay at home, with me as his principle carer but supplemented by plenty of practical professional help. Although his mind clearly deteriorated gradually (unfortunately what he perceived sometimes caused him considerable distress), I am sure that the real Chris was still there.
I never had any doubt that he was imprisoned by the illness, not destroyed by it.
Dorothy Searle
Spiritual self
Dorothy Jerrome (8 June) considers the problem that sufferers from Alzheimer’s/dementia may experience in the afterlife. She makes helpful comments. However, there is a strong body of evidence that suggests that what I would call the spiritual self detaches itself from the damaged brain/mind complex, returning to its original pristine state before going on to the next stage following the body’s death.
Eben Alexander, a respected surgeon and himself a recoverer from a deep coma, reports in his books that pre-death sudden lucidity is well known.
For example, in The Map of Heaven we read that the aunt of one contributor had Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. For a year she had not recognised her son or daughter, and could not remember the name of her husband.
The day before her death she had a ‘burst’ of sudden lucidity: ‘She was clear and no longer confused, telling us stories about her life that made sense to us.’
Bold it may be, but if we extrapolate from the examples given by Eben Alexander we have the comfort of knowing that we can look forward to ‘passing on’ with all cognitive clouds removed. To a greater or lesser measure that would apply to us all.
Peter Boyce
Improving ourselves and others
Peter Hancock finishes his excellent ‘Thought for the Week’ (29 June) with: ‘The tolerance I experienced in the army and the intolerance of some Quakers seem, to me, to be in sharp contrast. How do we disentangle the original Quaker religious message from the modern political and commercial ones?’
Peter speaks to my condition. I can only suggest that we will not achieve the disentanglement he seeks through the use of similar campaigning and intolerant language of those he witnesses. We need no campaign or busyness here, but a return to traditional Quaker contemplation and discernment in order that we may seek enlightenment.
Is not the purpose of religion to improve ourselves? Peter, on the other hand, is witnessing some Quaker Friends getting angry about improving others!
Does not all this angry and self-righteous rhetoric exhibited by some Quakers squeeze out the Spirit – not only from our lives, but also from the Religious Society of Friends as a whole? I hope not, but there is a growing body of evidence to the contrary and, sadly, Peter has added to it.
Stephen Feltham
Inclusive language
I appreciated Ruth Tod’s letter (8 June) in response to my earlier one (25 May) about the use of the word ‘worship’. Indeed, it is important ‘to communicate the richness and depth’ of our collective experience of silence. But how do we do that in a way that includes everyone? I also enjoyed the humour in John Clarke’s letter (15 June), taking issue with my use of the word ‘cringe’. This word is a bit strong and ‘unease’ would be a better word to have used.
My point wasn’t so much about how we describe Meeting for Worship than about the wider use of the word ‘worship’ for practically all times of silence. For instance, during a meal at one of our national centres we were asked to have a time of worship.
Surely, we can use terminology with which all would be comfortable, including nonreligious Friends, and generally seek to use language that is more inclusive of all, including newcomers?
Maria Grace
Historic Meeting houses
It is perhaps disappointing that Farfield Meeting House (1 June) should be seen as iconic and (for some outsiders) regarded as symbolic of the decline in Quakerism. Small groups of Friends struggle to keep open historic Meeting houses that give Quaker witness and provide continuing worship. These Meeting houses, some relatively isolated, can be kept active but need support and encouragement.
Two examples are the Meeting houses at Ettington and Adderbury. Ettington is listed Grade II* and is remarkably similar to Farfield. We are grateful to our forebears and try to follow their devotion and example with weekly worship as a Local Meeting whilst acknowledging that our Area Meeting is burdened with five other Meeting houses, four of which have historic status.
Adderbury is also Grade II* and, I feel, worthy of a rare Grade I status. It is inspirational, simple, galleried and largely unaltered since George Fox attended the opening. Structural repairs are overdue. Banbury and Evesham Friends make a special effort to open it for worship four times a year.
There will be other properties of similar importance elsewhere. This begs a question. Should Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) have a national register of buildings that are in decline or ‘at risk’?
David Butler’s 1999 major work shows the scale and range of Quaker Meeting houses with details of each. Annual accounts and financial reports of Area Meetings will indicate the extent to which they may have similar property problems. BYM has a Meeting Houses Fund, which is a possible resource. What does good practice require of us?
Tony Yelloly
Kneeling and standing
In response to the query from Mary Rowlands (29 June) as to when the practice of standing while a Friend knelt in prayer came to an end, in the 1950s the more avant garde Friends in Scarborough Meeting ceased to stand and this was eventually followed by most other Friends. I remember being very amused as a teenager when two Friends who rarely came to Meeting were the only ones to stand. They then decided that discretion was the better part of valour and sat down again in some confusion.
I do not know whether elders ever formally suggested that the practice should cease, but it had by round about 1960. This change was partly generated by the death of the older generation of Friends.
The few remaining Scarborough Friends of that era may well remember the ‘kneeling ministry’ of Edward Watts and the indomitable Edith Ellis (1878-1963), who was probably the last such Friend.
Metford Robson
Rethinking Security
I was interested to read the account of the Rethinking Security conference (29 June). The Quaker Asylum and Refugee Network (QARN) is affiliated to Rethinking Security and was invited to hold a workshop on ‘Migration and National Security’ at the conference.
States often regard people on the move as a threat to national security, and establish policy measures of control and containment. The impact on individuals is damaging and may violate their human rights. The UK’s immigration removal centres (IRCs) are part of this national security policy. Nearly 30,000 people a year are held in detention. There has been no judicial oversight of the decision to detain, and they do not know how long they will be there.
In the workshop Crystal Dickinson, of Bedford Meeting, spoke of her experience, over many years, as a visitor to Yarl’s Wood IRC. Citanya Sinclair, who had spent two months at Yarl’s Wood, gave the view from the inside, describing graphically how the gates clanged shut, and she realised that she was locked in.
Throughout the UK Friends are involved in advocating for change and working, through Sanctuary Meetings and in partnership with others, to challenge the ‘hostile environment’ policy and create a culture of welcome and hospitality. Members and attenders with this concern are invited to the QARN AGM in Bedford on 14 July.
Bridget Walker
Planning for humanity
Hans Rosling’s videos about population growth (available on YouTube) are fascinating. It is not only issues of birth control, but also our ability to keep older people alive for longer and longer, that are affecting the numbers of human beings on our planet.
Hans Rosling concludes that if we can plan for the numbers properly then everyone could live comfortably. It is, though, planning for our humanity that has always proved the problem.
Barbara Mark
Comments
Hans Rosling’s opinions have attracted some criticism from professional demographers, and I think we need to see a more diverse spread of comment on this subject. I’ll write more fully to The Friend, but just for the moment Friends might wish to look at these articles:
Church and State Magazine, http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/08/the-truth-about-population-sorry-i-couldnt-share-hans-roslings-optimism/
‘A confused statistician’, Ann and Paul Ehrlich, MAHB, on https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/a-confused-statistician/
‘Hans Rosling is ecologically illiterate’, Population media Center, https://www.populationmedia.org/2013/11/22/opinion-hans-rosling-is-ecologically-illiterate/
Roger Plenty
By RogerP on 12th July 2018 - 20:37
Please login to add a comment
